WarSclerotic

Russia and U.S. trying to move beyond differences to reach solution on Syria – Middle East – Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper.

It’s impossible to tell if Moscow and Washington agree on how the crisis should end, and whether they agree on Syria’s intentions, or possible courses of action; but neither side can allow the future map of Syria to be drawn by militias and gangs that could easily spread the crisis into Lebanon and Iraq.

By Zvi Bar’el | May.09, 2013 | 1:41 PM | 1

Syrian rebels aim during a weapons training exercise outside Idlib, Syria, Tuesday, Feb. 14, 2012. Photo by AP

“Syrians, beware of ending your revolution in the conference room,” warned Moaz al-Khatib, who recently stepped down from his position as the leader of the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces. His remark is in line with the opposition’s stance on the Russian-American proposal to hold another international conference to discuss the Syrian crisis.

Following the press conference held by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov, it is impossible to tell if the two nations agree on how the crisis should end. It is also unclear if Russia and the U.S. agree on Syria’s intentions, or possible courses of action should the proposed conference in May or June fail to yield agreements.

The Geneva Conference held on June 30, 2012, meant to create a base for solving the crisis in Syria, is not remembered fondly. The conference recommendations to immediately cease fire and begin negotiations were never adopted. A cease-fire, which was a precondition for talks, was never implemented, and negotiations never began.

After that conference, the vast differences in stance between the U.S. and Russia were revealed, as the two nations could not agree upon Syrian President Bashar Assad’s role in the proposed talks. Russia opposed the opposition’s demand that Assad step down before negotiations, while the U.S. joined in the demand that Assad step down as a precondition for talks.

Has one of the two powers changed its stance? Is Russia ready to oust Assad from his palace? Has Washington suddenly agreed to allow Assad to participate in early negotiations, provided he steps down later? The answers to these questions remain unknown.

Since the Geneva Conference there have been worrisome developments in Syria, which have apparently sparked Russia and the U.S. to try, yet again, to advance the diplomatic process. It’s doubtful that the tremendous amount of casualties, between 80,000 and 90,000, or the half a million refugees, is what has the two nations worried.

Aside from the casualties and refugees, in recent months the crisis has included the strengthening of the Islamist militias which have gained control of many Syrian provinces, including the Al-Nusra Front (an organization affiliated with Al-Qaida), religious and ethnic massacres, infighting within the opposition, increased Hezbollah and Iranian support, the use of chemical weapons and most recently, Israeli intervention. These factors have sparked the renewed American and Russian involvement.

Both nations know that the nature of the conflict’s eventual end will greatly influence their future relations with Syria, as well as their status in the Middle East. They cannot allow the future map of Syria to be drawn by militias and gangs that could easily spread the crisis into neighboring Lebanon and Iraq. Russia is suspiciously examining Washington’s position, as the latter is just a step or two away from arming the Free Syrian Army. The U.S. is weary of Russian military intervention. Both sides don’t know how Israel, the wild card, will proceed.

The two nations must now agree among themselves on the proper end to the conflict – the proper leadership for Syria, and what steps to take to put that leadership in power as soon as possible.

Not only Russia and the U.S. need to agree on these principles, however. The opposition organizations and Syrian militias must agree first and foremost to hold a conference, and then to adopt its decisions. The Free Syrian Army has already stated that it will not take part in preparing the conference, and will not commit to its recommendations. “The solution in Syria is military, not diplomatic,” said Brig. Gen. Salim Idris, Chief of Staff of the Free Syrian Army, only a few days ago. Idris demanded more weapons and financial support in order to put an end to the Syria’s military. Most of the Islamist militias as well, and primarily Al-Nusra, will not support any political solution that includes Assad.

On the other hand, some Syrian opposition organizations are ready to negotiate with Assad, but their representation is controversial. Opposition leadership will demand that they set the parameters for transferring power, that Assad stays out of the process and that they also set the time frame.

This entry was posted on May 9, 2013 at 1:57 PM and is filed under Uncategorized. You can subscribe via RSS 2.0 feed to this post's comments. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.